Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 95749 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Extended limitation under GST was upheld where the assessee had disclosed higher taxable turnover in GSTR-1 but restricted liability in GSTR-3B for part of the year, then failed to file returns for the later period and made only partial payment after inspection. Applying the lower threshold for invoking Section 74 under GST, the HC held that the record was sufficient to infer suppression of turnover and non-payment of tax, so the extended period and consequent demand were valid. On the separate issue of late fee for non-filing of the annual return, the Court found an inconsistency between Defect No.10 and the revenue abstract and remitted the matter only for a corrigendum correcting that limited aspect.
Extended limitation under GST was upheld where the assessee had disclosed higher taxable turnover in GSTR-1 but restricted liability in GSTR-3B for part of the year, then failed to file returns for the later period and made only partial payment after inspection. Applying the lower threshold for invoking Section 74 under GST, the HC held that the record was sufficient to infer suppression of turnover and non-payment of tax, so the extended period and consequent demand were valid. On the separate issue of late fee for non-filing of the annual return, the Court found an inconsistency between Defect No.10 and the revenue abstract and remitted the matter only for a corrigendum correcting that limited aspect.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
